I am not sure if i understand the notion of Chittamatra

[_Z_]

I am not sure if i understand the notion of Chittamatra

i just noticed it while reading through a thread and found it fascinating.

Chittamatra:
lack of a difference in entity between subject and object. And the lack of being the base of a name

q. i.e. Not being the essence of any given thing but simply being an essence when all things have an essence thence there is 'the' essence as undistinguished.

All = You-object-it-nothing

a universal communion of oneness?

i sat by the stone
it sat by me [the world moved that the stone was next to me]
i am not the part[s] of my description[s]
nor is it
i am the stone
i am the human [thought the stone]

excuse my rather infantile poetry, but can anyone explain this further? Am i near to its truth?

[Francis king]

cittamatra- mind only... the division of emptiness is where the different schools disagree.. cittamatrins believe all phenomena is- mind only...

[samabudhi]

Earlier schools held that the personal self is impermanent but that all other is inherently existing.
The question then asked was, "If the personal self is unreal, then what continues in rebirth."
Asanga (a Chittamatran) then said that mind itself continues, but that all phenomena, including the personal self, are impermanent.

Yogacara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[_Z_]

Thank you both for the information!


I think i agree with the chittamatran school of thought then. There is basically the transient and the pure essence – i don't know though if we can attribute even the nature of mind to this though, it seams somewhat stateless and yet central [the essence of {loosely speaking}] to all natures.


What then of the observer? People i have been talking with lately seam to think it is central and fundamental to the self, it is a graspable thing to the modern thinker as an observation of a thing makes a difference in scientific thinking e.g. Relativity and quantum theory. However i feel that the observer occurs when the mind is concentrated/centralised and then concentrated further in its epicentral aspect of focus! Thence the true universal essence is uncentralised – it is perhaps a 'state' of 'mind' that has 'let go' and does not manifest as self, the observer or any other concentrated nature.


Would you say this is so?


Further, there seams to be a magical 'in between' which i think of as 'the guider' [rather than inner controller], it would be the nature that can become decentralised and then recentre itself upon rebirth. This is represented by the phoenix perhaps.


Any more insights gladly appreciated!

Z

[samabudhi]

Seven Works Of Vasubandhu, The Buddhist Psychological Doctor by Anacker, Stefan
I recommend this book

[_Z_]

thank you! i'll check it out